maandag 18 mei 2009

De Pro Israel Lobby 126

Netanyahu Visits the White House:
Change We Can Believe in for U.S.-Israeli Relations?

By Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies
14 May 2009
 
Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is coming to Washington on May 18, for his first official visit with President Obama.  If President Obama is serious about achieving a two-state solution in his first term, and therefore serious about bringing real pressure to bear on Israel, there will be no better time to do so. *
 
Obama, who has strongly supported the idea of a two-state solution since his campaign, has yet to articulate whether or not he is actually prepared to spend some of his massive political capital to exert serious pressure on Israel towards that end – for example by conditioning (even some) of the currently committed $30 billion in U.S. military aid to Israel, on a complete Israeli settlement freeze in the West Bank.  If he means it, this could be the moment. Netanyahu’s campaign rejection of the two-state solution, his rejection of continuing the current Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy and instead limiting negotiations to economic issues, and his extreme racist Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman all serve to make a serious U.S. effort towards Israeli accountability not only timely, but less politically costly than ever.
 
But there are serious dangers ahead.
 
We still don’t know for sure whether President Obama is indeed serious.
There is little question he supports a two-state solution in the abstract – but that is not enough. The question is what he is willing to do to make it happen – since Israel on its own, secure in its so-far unconditional U.S. military aid and uncritical protection in the UN and elsewhere, has no intention of doing so.
 
 What if Obama accepts a meaningless Netanyahu gesture as a significant concession?

            In recent days, as the Jewish Telegraphic Agency describes it, the White House is indicating that “Netanyahu has shown seriousness about accommodating Obama's push for renewed talks with the Palestinians.” If the U.S. demand is in fact simply that Israel renew talks, Obama will have failed the first test; “talks” have been the hallmark of at least 18 years of failed U.S.-backed Middle East diplomacy.  “Talks,” including the Madrid, Oslo, “Road Map,” and other agreements, have left the Palestinians with virtually nothing on the ground except for a virtually powerless “Palestinian Authority,” expanding settlements, checkpoints, theft of land and water, the separation Wall in the West Bank, and the complete physical and human devastation of Gaza.  Without an entirely different U.S. role – one based on explicit support for international law as the basis of any negotiations – a new round of talks will go nowhere.
            Another version of this scenario might be a sudden reversal of Netanyahu’s current position and his re-embrace the idea of a two-state solution. He could perhaps even promise some kind of action on settlements (most likely agreement to dismantle settlement “outposts”).   If Obama welcomes the mere words, this will also mean repeating the failures of the past. A variety of Israeli governments have agreed to settlement freezes before, explicitly including so-called “natural growth,” and have simply disregarded their obligation to implement them. They have agreed numerous times to dismantle the “outposts,” which are the smaller symbolic settlements, only to allow, or provide government support for, their immediate rebuilding.  (In fact, all the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, not only the “outposts” are illegal under international law, including the huge city-settlements of Ma’ale Adumim, Ariel, and others, and including the vast East Jerusalem settlements disguised as “neighborhoods.”)
            In any of these scenarios, Netanyahu might drop his ultra-nationalist extremist rhetoric to endorse earlier Israeli “moderate” positions – none of which ever led towards ending the occupation.  It is even possible that Netanyahu’s extremist language was designed explicitly to be moderated as a “gift” to the U.S. president during just such a visit.  The danger is – what if President Obama falls for the trick, welcomes such inadequate promises with enthusiasm, calls them a great concession, thanks the Israeli leader profusely, and demands Palestinian concessions in return?  The result will mean the Obama administration will have done nothing to hold Israel accountable to its promises, settlements will continue being built, and the Palestinians will once again be identified as the obstacle to peace.

Geen opmerkingen:

Peter Flik en Chuck Berry-Promised Land

mijn unieke collega Peter Flik, die de vrijzinnig protestantse radio omroep de VPRO maakte is niet meer. ik koester duizenden herinneringen ...